Cornish Ayr Holiday Park owner feels ‘victimised' by government tax changes
ITV News West Country's Grace Pascoe has been speaking to the owner of the holiday park.
The owner of a Cornish holiday park says he feels 'victimised' by the current Labour government due to changes in Business Property Relief and Inheritance Tax.
Andrew Baragwanath, who owns Ayr Holiday Parksays, says the changes could cost him around 1 million pounds in what he calls a 'tax grab' by the government.
The changes have led him to consider holding off on new investment in the business and to not replace employees who leave.
He said: 'We have about 30 employees here at the moment, which we keep on all year round. Due to some of the tax changes, I now would look very carefully at replacing any employee that left.
"Similarly, I'm looking at whether to replace any caravans. Normally I buy new caravans every year, that may not be possible now.
"We've got to look at retaining money in the business or taking out perhaps insurance policies, spending money on legal and accountancy advice, which, frankly, we just see is dead money.
"It's all about looking how to protect the business from what we see as a tax grab. I feel victimised by this government.
"It's almost as though we're the enemy and they don't want family businesses to thrive. And I know we want to fund the NHS and all the other things government has to do, but they also have to take into account there is an unintended consequence".
Andrew still hopes to pass the family run holiday park on to his daughter who is involved in the business but is considering all options.
"The impact of the business property relief and inheritance tax changes is quite massive. Potentially it could put a £1 million tax bill on the business. One exit would be to sell the whole business, but quite likely it could be bought by one of the big groups.
"I think it's a shame because you then lose out on the personal attention and the detail on the park and the care you get from being family-owned rather than being part of a group".
A new report from Family Business UK and CBI Economics reveals that family-owned businesses in the South West are expecting to cut almost 19,000 jobs and reduce investment by more than 16% leading to a drop in economic activity worth almost £1.3bn.
Deborah Walker, Director General of the British Holidays and Home Parks Association wants the government to reverse its decision. She said" 'We're urging the government to take another look at the figures. The government thinks that it's going to raise taxes with this inheritance tax.
"But the figures show that there actually is actually going to cost the Treasury £130 million and what it's also going to do is force much loved family-run businesses to have to sell up or close down and those are exactly the sort of businesses that are driving rural and coastal economies.'
The new rules on Business Property Relief are set to come into effect in April 2026.
In response a HM Treasury spokesperson said: 'Our reforms to Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs will mean three quarters of estates will continue to pay no inheritance tax at all, while the remaining quarter will pay half the inheritance tax that most estates pay, and payments can be spread over 10 years, interest-free. This is a fair and balanced approach which helps fix the public services we all rely on.
'Capping the rate of corporation tax, reforming planning, establishing a National Wealth Fund and creating pension megafunds is part of our Plan for Change to get Britain building, unlock investment and support business so we can raise living standards and make all parts of the country better off'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain's mad planning system is becoming more and more absurd
Across the political spectrum, we don't agree on much. But we can all agree that the UK needs more homes and must start building in earnest. So why is Labour-run Birmingham City Council demanding that Mark Jones rip down the £180,000 two-bedroom 'granny flat' he built in his back garden for his dying father? With bin strikes, rat plagues and near bankruptcy, one might imagine that this particular local authority would have different matters on its mind. Mr Jones said he believed the building complied with planning laws and lodged a retrospective planning application. But the council's officious officers found that the Sutton Coldfield IT engineer has fallen foul of their regulations as it was 'over-intensive', and have ordered it to be demolished by the end of the month. The case shows in microcosm what is wrong with Britain's planning system. Like so much that is wrong on our island, from the NHS to the post-war explosion in council housing, its origins lie with the 1945 Clement Attlee Labour government. The 1947 Town and Country Planning Act established our system of planning permission, as well as the modern system of needing consents to build on land. It also meant that all planning authorities had to come up with a comprehensive development plan. Green belts, the listing of buildings and the anathematising of building in the open countryside can all be dated back to this legislation. In some regards, we should be grateful for Attlee's innovation. Anyone who has taken the seven-hour trip from Boston to Washington DC on the Acela Amtrak train will see why. Apart from a stretch along the Connecticut coastline, the prospect out of the windows is of virtually unending urban sprawl. Or contrast the west coast of Ireland with the west coast of Scotland. While the Irish views are endlessly interrupted by the tackiest imaginable McMansions, complete with fake colonnades and naff statuary, the Caledonian vista is virtually uninterrupted. Our planning system has made large-scale developers hugely powerful to a far greater extent than in most other developed countries. Building your own house is straightforward in much of the United States. But then America is a large country with plenty of space, as defenders of the British status quo might point out. The rules in much of Europe, however, are also vastly more flexible. In France, for example, it is relatively straightforward to buy a plot of land on the fringes of a village and build a family home on it. By contrast, in the UK, to build a new single dwelling in the isolated countryside is extraordinarily difficult. One of the very few routes is via what is now called Paragraph 84 consent. This is a rule, first introduced in 1997 in the dying days of John Major's government, allowing for new country houses to be built, but only if they are of 'truly outstanding' design and 'reflect the highest standards of architecture'. We would all, I am sure, like to live in such houses – but to meet such benchmarks requires money, plenty of it. It is not something that rural Mr Joneses, middle-earning IT engineers and their like, will ever be able to afford. The British system places all the cards in the hands of the vast corporate builders, with their new housing developments. Angela Rayner's Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is now being pushed through the House of Lords, will only make this problem even worse. It will make development easier, and that is indeed a worthy goal. It will make it easier to overrule Nimby-style objections, but its mechanisms are not there to help people who want to do their own projects. It is all about pushing through large-scale plans in the face of local opposition, be they for new homes, wind or solar farms or the latest railway wheeze dreamt up in Whitehall. It is not about allowing Sir Keir Starmer's much-touted 'working people' to realise their own building ambitions. Our planning system might seem to have been more of a success if our post-war homes were exemplars of design. But that is far from the case. Probably the only country in Western Europe that has uglier townscapes than those found in much of Britain is Germany. Walk through Cologne, and outside of its Cathedral and Romanesque churches you would be hard put to find an uglier city with less inspiring buildings. Colognians have a very good excuse. When their city was rebuilt in the 1950s from the ashes the RAF had reduced it to, beauty was not foremost on their minds. We have no such excuse for some of the horrors that urban planning has imposed on our towns and cities. And our planning laws did little to protect us from these missteps. When Nick Boles was housing minister in the Cameron government, he was evangelical about relaxing planning rules in urban and suburban areas. He wanted to allow thousands upon thousands of Mr Joneses to do pretty much as they pleased with their own land and property, and thought this would make a huge difference to our housing shortage. It would also empower local people. Such an approach would clearly be a disaster if applied to, say, the Victorian garden square of London or the Georgian terraces of Bath. They would soon be scarred with endless glass boxes and extensions which would now be on trend, but soon look very dated. If Labour really wants to empower working people, allowing the Mr Joneses to build on their back gardens could be just the thing. But don't hold your breath.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Starmer's promised ethics commission may repackage existing regulators
Keir Starmer's flagship new ethics and integrity commission may be a rebrand of existing watchdogs brought together under a new 'umbrella' rather than creating an entirely fresh regulator, government sources have said. A year after Labour made its manifesto promise, ministers are mulling the idea of a new oversight structure above current regulators to avoid the need for starting from scratch. They are also considering abolishing some regulators, with one option being to get rid of the lobbying watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) and splitting its functions between the independent adviser on ministerial standards for former politicians and the civil service commission for former officials. Acoba has widely been criticised for being toothless, so any redistribution of its responsibilities could be an opportunity for new penalties for those flouting lobbying rules. Another possibility is formalising the regular meetings of standards watchdogs, convened by the committee on standards in public life, chaired by former military chief Doug Chalmers. However, asked last week whether he wanted responsibility for a new ethics and integrity watchdog, Chalmers told a panel that he did not want the role. Sources suggested the new commission could have its own website 'signposting' to existing ethics structures and providing an overarching governance. Several Whitehall sources said the process of coming up with a new ethics structure had proved more complex than initially thought and that ministers were increasingly reluctant to add a whole new body at a time when they are trying to shrink the civil service rather than expand it. There are multiple bodies with elements of standards as part of their remit including the independent adviser on ministerial standards, Acoba, the CSPL, the parliamentary standards commissioners, the civil service commission, the independent complaints and grievance service, the House of Lords appointments commission, the electoral commission, the UK parliamentary standards authority (Ipsa), the UK statistics authority and the registrar of consultant lobbyists. Part of the complication is that their responsibilities are fairly distinct and some report to parliament while others are responsible to the government. Tim Durrant, programme director at the Institute for Government (IfG), said: 'Labour committed to creating an ethics and integrity commission in their manifesto but more important than the structure is how the standards system works. If all they do is create a new organisation that doesn't fix the underlying issues.' The government has faced criticism over the length of time it has taken to establish the new commission, which was originally championed by deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, who no longer has the brief. Earlier this month, parliament's public administration committee launched a new inquiry to examine the seeming lack of progress and to push the government on what has happened to its ethics commitments. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion It was one of Keir Starmer's flagship manifesto pledges that the new Labour government would 'establish a new independent ethics and integrity commission, with its own independent chair, to ensure probity in government'. The party promised to 'restore confidence in government and ensure ministers are held to the highest standards', and to enforce restrictions on ministers lobbying for companies they used to regulate, with meaningful sanctions for those breaching the rules. However, there was no blueprint for a commission ready to go when Starmer formed the government last year. It has barely been mentioned by ministers since last July. The prime minister published a new ministerial code last year, allowing the independent adviser on ministerial standards to start his own investigations into misconduct without requiring permission from the prime minister. It is understood the government is hoping to come forward with proposals soon for a new ethics structure. A government spokesperson said: 'This government is committed to establishing the right structures to uphold the highest standards in public life. We have already taken steps to improve probity and transparency, including through introducing a new ministerial code which emphasises the principles of public life, by strengthening the terms of reference for the independent adviser, and by introducing a new monthly register of gifts and hospitality.'
Powys County Times
2 hours ago
- Powys County Times
School term dates 'jeopardise Royal Welsh Show for pupils'
Changes to school term dates meaning pupils and families from outside Powys miss the opening days of the Royal Welsh Show have been "strongly opposed" by organisers of the national event. The Welsh Government announced on Wednesday (June 25) that following a consultation into school term dates and holidays, the summer term in 2027 will end on Tuesday, July 20. Only schools in Powys will have finished the term by Friday, July 16, which is three days before the opening day of the Royal Welsh Show in Llanelwedd, near Builth Wells. The Royal Welsh Agricultural Society's chief executive, Aled Rhys Jones, said: 'We are strongly opposed to schools in Wales being open during the week of the Royal Welsh Show. "The Show has always been held during the first week of the school summer holidays and is a highlight of the national calendar. It attracts thousands of visitors - including families, schoolchildren, exhibitors and volunteers - from across Wales and beyond. 'Thousands of young people take part in competitions and activities, gaining hands-on experience and valuable vocational learning. 'While we welcome the decision for schools in Powys to close the week before, it's vital to recognise that the Royal Welsh Show is a national event, not just a local one. 'Its significance to Welsh culture, education, and rural life must be protected.' Education Secretary Lynne Neagle said variations in school term dates and school holidays could cause difficulties for many families and businesses across Wales, and she fully acknowledged there were both advantages and disadvantages to aligning school term dates. 'Reduce footfall' The changes have been met with criticism from the Welsh Conservatives who are calling for it to be scrapped completely because every pupil and family hoping to attend the "culturally significant" show should be able to do so from the start to the end. Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Education, Natasha Asghar MS, added: "These plans will undoubtedly reduce footfall at the Royal Welsh Show by restricting the number of families who can attend its first two days. 'As the Royal Welsh was a major barrier to Labour and Plaid Cymru implementing their deeply unpopular school holiday reform, making this small change now feels like they are laying the groundwork to implement their original plans to rob our children of their summer holidays in the future. The very best livestock attend the Royal Welsh Show. It's a place for champions. (Image: RWAS) Hundreds of thousands of people attend the show every year. 'The Welsh Government cannot ignore the opposition from every teachers' union, as well as the farming, tourism and business sectors. We need a rethink on these dates immediately, and the school holiday reform must be scrapped completely not just postponed." Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Samuel Kurtz MS, said: 'Any changes that jeopardise that ability for young people to enjoy it should be confined to the bin. 'This decision adds to the narrative that agriculture and rural communities are an afterthought for Labour, and never a priority.' A spokesperson for the Welsh Government said: 'We believe there are benefits to having the same term dates across Wales, including helping to eliminate difficulties for parents and school staff who may work and live in different local authority areas. 'The dates for 2026-27 were proposed by the majority of local authorities in Wales, including Powys, Ceredigion and neighbouring local authorities and were supported by a large proportion of respondents to our recent consultation.
